Incomplete information was provided, though everyone KNEW exactly who she was speaking about.

That's passive-aggressive.

I don't know that it's passive aggressive. I have only been here a year, but it seems that name/shame threads targetted at other members isn't encouraged.

This was thread was where the OP wanted to voice support for the forum owner and tried to be as vague as possible about the offender.

The OP was to Cris, and I think Cris probably knew what it was about.

Some knew, but I'm not surprised others didn't know who or what, or had only seen small samples from one thread or another and didn't connect the pattern. Not knowing what or who a thread is about is relatively common I think.

I'm guessing that some of the reactions you are getting are probably related to offering an opinion without knowing the situation, not because you didn't know who or what it was about.

You asking for more information is fine. Saying it was Beebo's job to provide it isn't. She was being respectful of not making a thread calling out someone, while at the same time being able to rant about how I was being treated.

Whatever the case, it is done.

__________________ "A certain darkness is needed to see the stars" ~ Osho

It's NOT my job as a reader to look up users' posts that would support a thread creator's contentions.

It's the thread creator's job.

Why are you taking such a weird stance to this thread, you immediately fell on the side of Quad before knowing the details and now you're acting as if it is everyone else's responsibility to fully inform you on details without a little reading yourself - incidentally you liked my post, had you read it you would have realised that it wasn't in agreement with what you were saying at all. If you skim read then you will miss a lot of info, and calling someone out for your own lack of reading comprehension is really poor form.

I don't know that it's passive aggressive. I have only been here a year, but it seems that name/shame threads targetted at other members isn't encouraged.

This was thread was where the OP wanted to voice support for the forum owner and tried to be as vague as possible about the offender.

The OP was to Cris, and I think Cris probably knew what it was about.

Some knew, but I'm not surprised others didn't know who or what, or had only seen small samples from one thread or another and didn't connect the pattern. Not knowing what or who a thread is about is relatively common I think.

I'm guessing that some of the reactions you are getting are probably related to offering an opinion without knowing the situation, not because you didn't know who or what it was about.

Agreed. Except my opinion was based upon what I had already seen of him. NOT some new thread which wasn't even referenced.

Oh, ffs, it's no one's job to provide you with links. To anything. Beebo posted what she wanted to post...if you needed more, you could have looked. Instead, you decided to go all pedantic about people not following your silly rules regarding how posts should be made.

Congratulations. The thread entitled 'Banning Assholes' is now all about you, Jolene Benoir.

You asking for more information is fine. Saying it was Beebo's job to provide it isn't. She was being respectful of not making a thread calling out someone, while at the same time being able to rant about how I was being treated.

Whatever the case, it is done.

I respectfully disagree.

It was her job. That comes with the territory of calling someone out, and creating a thread to do so.

Oh, ffs, it's no one's job to provide you with links. To anything. Beebo posted what she wanted to post...if you needed more, you could have looked. Instead, you decided to go all pedantic about people not following your silly rules regarding how posts should be made.

Congratulations. The thread entitled 'Banning Assholes' is now all about you, Jolene Benoir.

Fair enough. Regardless, I would hope you know that I would not ban solely on someone's whim or lightly. I already knew what she was referring to. He had been sniping at me for awhile, though I have called him out for being a complete idiot in the past. If I had not been aware, I would have asked, as you did, but not chided the OP or made a snap judgement without more info.

I'm going to file this under "people should read for me", which seems to be the theme on this beautiful friday afternoon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jolene Benoir

He hasn't gone out of bounds in terms of violating rules here, as of yet. He hasn't abused any of us, unlike other posters who are allowed to call people "twats", and accepted.

there is no logic at all in complaining about people calling each other twats, and expecting not to immediately be called a twat. That's not even the shallow end of the pool, that's sitting on the sand with a bucket on your head.

I'm going to do file this under "people should read for me", which seems to be the theme on this beautiful friday afternoon.

there is no logic at all in complaining about people calling each other twats, and expecting not to immediately be called a twat. That's not even the shallow end of the pool, that's sitting on the sand with a bucket on your head.

Fair enough. Regardless, I would hope you know that I would not ban solely on someone's whim or lightly. I already knew what she was referring to. He had been sniping at me for awhile, though I have called him out for being a complete idiot in the past. If I had not been aware, I would have asked, as you did, but not chided the OP or made a snap judgement without more info.

Ultimately, his banning had nothing to do with this thread.

I have only stated that the OP should have provided more info in response to the peanut gallery that it was MY job to do the research.

I'm of the opinion that if you create a thread, give folks a clue what you are talking about.